THE TANNAIM

Tannaim: simply means teachers or sages and is from the root word “tanna” derived from the Aramaic
word “tena or teni”, simply teacher(s) of the law. The teachers are also called sage(s) of the Mishnah.
The period of the tannaitic traditions stretching from A.D 10 to 200 led to the establishment of the
schools of exegesis or academics, the Shammai School and the Hillel School, respectively. These teachers
or sages of this period are called tannaim; during this period, teachers were not fully given the title
Rabbi, and it produced what is known as Mishnah (Evans 608). The Jewish or rabbinic interpretation has
been divided into two major phases: Tannaim and Amoraim. During the Tannaim period, it had two rival
schools; Conservative and Liberal schools. Shammai led the conservative, while the liberal was led by
Hillel (Bray 50). Some exegetical theologians are trying to trace the Jewish attempts of systematizing the
scripture with regard to interpretation back in 450 BC. This was the time Ezra, a literalist himself and a
scribe, lived (Ezra 7:6, 10). The method of plain-meaning or straightforward interpretation deals with
oral translation and oral interpretation of the scriptures in the synagogues (Longenecker 28). As S. Lawy
says “the rabbi considered the plain interpretation of the laws based mainly upon a literal
interpretation” (131). Stephen O. Y Baba also corroborated that “the scripture was interpreted very
literally, even the number of letters in a word was given significance, that is the scriptures were
understood straightforwardly and the text being applied to the lives of people in that (Plain-simple-used
or natural sense)” (53). The generation of the Tannaim spanned from the first generation to the sixth
generation; classical among them are the school of the Hillel or house of Hillel and the school of
Shammai or the house of Shammai.

The school of Hillel was founded by a renowned Jewish teacher who was from the tribe of Benjamin
and his mother was from Davidic lineage. Hillel was associated with Mishnah & Talmud. The Hillel school
is not as conservative as the Shammai School; Deuteronomy 24:1-4 interpreted “something indecent” to
mean sexual immorality and any other shortcoming of a wife/woman (Walter 430). This school of
interpretation has seven middots or principles, later expanded to thirty-two by his followers; the
following are the seven principles or norms, also called middots that govern the Sages of this house.

a. The first principle or norm: Qal wa-homer, the principle centered on interpreting from
something that is light to the heavy, light and heavy (that is, a minor and majus, and vice versa)
principle. (Berkhalf 15) (e.g Gen 44:8; Exo, 6:12; Jer. 12:5; and Deut, 31: 27), “this principle
teaches that if the scripture prohibits theft, therefore the Bible prohibits burglary that is more
severe than theft. Hillel will say as long as the Bible prohibits light offense (theft), then it must
prohibit burglary, which is heavier than theft” (Baba 58).
b. The second principle: Gererah shawah, this principle deals with equal degree or equivalence;
Gerald Bray Submits on this that “the use of the same word in deferent contexts means that the
same considerations apply to each context” (Bray 59), Baba affirmatively asserts that “when two
verses are similar in form, because of these similarities in the form an interpreter may believe
that it is proper to conclude on inferring that their intent or meanings are the same” (Baba 58).
E.g. Numbers 9:2-3 “at the appointed time,” and Numbers 28:2 “at the appointed time”, the
common expression is “at the appointed time,” but this expression has two different contexts
one is about sacrifices, and the other is about the Passover. Therefore, this principle may be
misleading because the surrounding contexts will help interpret this very expression rather than
relying on the principle of equivalence.
c. The third principle: Binyan ab mikathub ‘ehad, this principle is about “repetition of a phrase
means that ideas associated with it are applicable in all contexts” (Bray 59), while Berkhof says it
is “deduction from special to general” (15). This means that a general principle is deduced from
specific instance as well, e.g “if a passage forbids something, like working on the Sabbath, one
 can on that basis infer that since the law says you cannot work on the Sabbath, it would be
wrong for you to work during Holidays, this we call Deductive inference” (Baba 59).
d. The fourth Principle: Binyan ab mishene kethubim, states that “a principle can be established by
relating two texts to each other; that principle can then be applied to other texts” (Bray 59) or
“an inference from several passages” (Berkhof 15). This principle simply infers that several
similar passages should be interpreted the same way or the principle found workable in two
different passages that are similar should be used to interpret the third similar passage.
e. The fifth principle: Kelal upherat, this principle also states that “inferences from the general to
the special” or “in certain cases, a general principle may be restricted in its application by certain
qualifications placed upon it, and conversely, particular rules may be generalized for reasons”
(Bray 59). This method has to do with specific to general, what is applied and understood from
specific instance and interpretation should be applied to a more general instance.
f. The sixth principle: Kayoze bo bemaqom ‘aher, clearly states that “a difficulty in one text may be
resolved by comparing it with another similar passage, though verbal correspondences are not
required” (Bray 59), or “analogy from another passage” (Berkhof 16). This is about using a
simpler text to resolve a difficult text, It clearly disregard the context of a given text or passage.
g. The seventh principle: Dabar halamed me ‘inyano, holds that “a meaning may be established by
the context” (Bray 59) or simply “an inference from the context” (Berkhof 16). This means that
there are two difficult texts the conclusion should be drawn from the context.
Therefore, these are the major systematic principles or middots applied by the house of Hillel in their
teaching and exposition of the Old Testament text. Thus, Gerald Bray concludes that “we would agree
with the last two without serious reservations, but would find much difficulty with the first three,
especially in the generalization implied in the formulation of these rules. The fourth and fifth middots
are somewhere in the middle and might be acceptable today with certain important qualifications.”
(59).
While the school or house of Shammai was founded by Shammai ha-Zaken one of the leading Jewish
sages was a contemporary and a competitor of Hillel, This school was characterized by strict and
literalness in interpreting a given text. A classical example is “God hates divorce” (Mal 2:16; Deut 24:1-
4), which the Shammai school restricted its interpretation to sexual perversion; “something indecent”
refers to immorality that destroys the holiness of the home” (Waltke 430). Thus, the mark of the
Shammai house is defined by a plain-straight ward and literal meaning of the scripture and they run
their exposition and teachings based on that understanding.
Therefore, the Tannaim, who were teachers or sages were classically divided into these two houses of
interpretation one is systematic in its approach since it is guided by laid down principles or middots that
define their methods of interpretation and exposition. And the other house deals with the literalness of
the text, because it considers the text in plain sense and first value, which sometimes, especially in
Apocalyptic literature may lead to ambiguity. These various houses or schools did influence the various
generations that came afterward.
REFERENCES
Baba, O Y Stephen, History and Principle of Biblical Hermeneutics, Ilorin: Amazing Grace, 2016. Bray,
Gerald, Biblical Interpretation Past and Present, Downers Grove: IVP Academics, 19196. Evans, C. A
“Tannaim” in Dictionary of the Later New Testament and its Developments; Editors: Ralph P. Martins and
Peter H. Davids, 608. Downers Grove: InterVarsity Press, 1997. Berkhof. Louis, Principles of Biblical
Interpretation, Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1958. Longenecker, N. Richard, Biblical Exegesis in the
Apostolic Period, Grand Rapids: Eerdmans Publishing, 1975. Lowy S.“Some Aspects of Normative and
Sectarian Interpretation of the Scriptures” ALUOS, VI (1966-68):131. Waltke, K. Bruce, An Old Testament
Theology; An Exegetical, Canonical, and Thematic Approach. Grand Rapids: Zondervan, 2007.
J. UMARU RIKKA